October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

process is currently a largely top-down process, with design occurring primarily at the national and state level while
implementation takes place at the local level with pressure applied from above, as explained by Hoff (2002) and
Evans (2002). As demonstrated here, top-down state science standards have the effect of stifling innovation in
software design, as in the case of two of the simulation design companies described above. Similarly, technology
standards may not take into consideration the specific needs of local communities. After examining the impacts of
the current top-down regime of science and technology standards on educational software design, marketing, and use
in practice, it seems useful to consider an alternative approach to standard-setting, a bottom-up approach.
Is a top-down process the only or even the best way of designing and implementing science and technology
standards? Standards-setting processes are often promoted as participatory, with input being sought from teachers
and lower-level administrators. Yet, this is still a top-down approach, since standards are first set at the national or
state level and then trickle down to districts and schools who are compelled, often through incentives such as
standardized testing and the purchasing of texts, software, and other equipment, to adopt the dominant standards.
Further, at the state level, it is the large states that have the most impact on textbooks and software, creating an
inequality of fairness among the states. A bottom-up approach to educational standards would replace the centralized
power of standard-setting bodies at the national level and within large states with a more diffuse power that is spread
more evenly among schools and school districts, giving them more autonomy to control their own classroom content
and giving software developers more room to innovate to meet the diverse needs of local schools.
Perhaps it would be useful to examine not only the effectiveness of this structure but also the potential of inverting it
to allow for more local control of educational content and equipment. In such a scenario, schools and districts might
begin the standard-setting process, which would then be built up to the state and then the national level as a process
of consensus-building. Local standards-setters could get the input of larger educational bodies in an advisory role,
rather than the reverse. A process of standardization from below might allow teachers, students, and administrators to
reap the benefits of standardization discussed above while still retaining local autonomy and control over content,
and leaving the door open for more innovation in educational software design, marketing, and use. By empowering
teachers to serve not only as software designers (Fleischmann, 2006a) but also as standards-setters, it would allow
them to control the content that they teach rather than merely implementing the wills of faceless standards boards,
ensuring that they would be able to meet the real needs of the students in their classrooms.
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to David J. Hess, Bo Xie, and three anonymous reviewers for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of
this paper, as well as to all of the interviewees (named and anonymous) who participated in this study. This study
was funded by a Dissertation Research Improvement Grant from the Science and Society Program of the National
Science Foundation (SES-0217996).
References
Awalt, C., & Jolly, D. (1999). An inch deep and a mile wide: Electronic tools for savvy administrators. Educational
Technology & Society, 2 (3), 97-105.
Eglash, R. (1999). African fractals: Modern computing and indigenous design, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Evans, S. M. (2002). Aligning to state standards. Science Teacher, 69 (3), 54-57.
Feng, P. (2002). Designing a “global” privacy standard: Politics and expertise in technical standards-setting,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Fleischmann, K. R. (2003). Frog and cyberfrog are friends: Dissection simulation and animal advocacy. Society and
Animals, 11 (2), 123-143.
116